Creativity in Architecture

[JingYao]

Hi Everyone,

I think the discussion about ‘concept in architecture was very successfully in this forum, I think we have created a collective effort to drive the topic to the limit.

I think we have clearly state what is the nature of a concept is, but then what is the nature of creativity in creation or searching for a concept or architecture design in general?

In my opinion, creativity has got a lot to do creating a conceptual space which can be an interpretation or reflection of the physical problem, or a totally new world, the formal I call it problem solving and the later creative art.

Metaphor used in poetry has always been praised as the model for creativity, in which I think it works similar to graphs in mathematics in which the physical situation is abstracted and modeled where further possibility which does not seem apparent in the physical world can be reviled.

What is your opinion about creativity in architecture?

[csintexas]

I would suggest creativity is always about problem solving.

Whether the problem is more practical (energy efficiency for example) or artistic (how to best express individuality for example) the creative process is the same.

[JingYao]

I think the essential difference between problem solving and creative art is the begining. In problem solving the context of the problem is layout, the presentation of a problem has already defined its area, while in creative art it does not. Perhaps in creative art, the first act of creativity is to create the "problem" or "intension" so the later process can be a reaction to the problem, then I guess it draws a parallel of these two issues.

[csintexas]

Yes, isn't that the way we always start? We define what it is we want to accomplish.

[usarender]

I agree with your views JingYao.

There is a clear difference at the inception, between creative art and architecture. Creative art can define it's own problem as it desires to do so. Architecture is not always so free to define the problem at will. It must work with constraints. These help to define the problem, but are external, not only in the mind of the architect. While in the case of an artist, the constraints can be internally generated, according to the problem the artist desires to create, and can be even on a whim.

If an architect should just decide what he wants to do, and then do it, he would be, so to speak, "like a bull in a china shop".

An artist can create his own problems and then resolve them. An architect, if attending a client, will be guided by the problem, the context, the technical issues, and various project constraints (budget, user needs, technical possibilities or restrictions, codes, zoning ordinances, environmental factors etc etc). So the creative process and problem resolution processes may be present, but vary in complexity, means of formation and possibilities of resolution. There is a big difference in terms of complexity of issues.

Now if an architect creates a project for his own use, he will be somewhat defining the problem himself, but the level of complexity of issues still applies, although some project constraints may not be present.

[JingYao]

In design we could say reflection about the past and designing for the future. Designing something which does not exist involves imagination.

How does the application of imagination help one design creative?

Does anyone apply any creative techniques or methodology in architecture?

Such as Brainstorming, Lateral thinking, Conceptual Blending, Triz...etc?

[csintexas]

Of course I can't speak for anyone else but I would have to say that yes those methods are used in architecture. A lot of competitions are geared toward creativity and would lend themselves to those types of processes.

[Pragyana D Mehrotra]

agree that the topic has been thoroughly explored. I justremembered a saying . which could also be true for creativity in architecture " Design is what is left when time and money have run out"

[csintexas]

I would not agree. It takes more creativity to design a building that is artful, functional and inexpensive than to just make art.

[usarender]

I think it is interesting to explore the use of metaphors when creating a concept and in bringing forth a world of possibilities. It can aid in the creative process, as you have suggested, at times when our mind is to stuck on technical issues. At times, it can help re-balance our various mental processes and bring us back to a state of equilibrium. The comparison to mathematics, as a model, is not so clear and direct, however.

[monio27]

i think that creativity is to set the rules of the game and conception has a lot more to do with the understanding of the place, of couse u cannot set the rules without a profound conceptualization and rethinking of the actual place. but that is allways before.

[The Architect]

Creativity is all about the flow of your spirit, which flows right straight through your understanding.


Take care...

[Pragyana D Mehrotra]

Hi csintexas,
There was no contradiction implied. I agree that a building design would be challenging, but to an artist concerned with creating immortal art or a portrayal of an issue would be as tough. An artist has to convince both thematically and in presentation, whereas in architecture you can get by if your building can follow normal creative rules and be functional too.
And i agree with monio that creativity will be more productive if the rules are set otherwise concept creation or conceptualization will just flounder.

[birgco]

Hey The Architect,

First intelligent thought I've heard in a while..... good call.

[csintexas]

I'm not saying art does not take creativity, I am saying it is more challenging and thus takes greater creativity to make a building that is good in all aspects. (not just art)

Art in itself is fairly easy. There are no rules and no justification other than what the artists wants to provide. There can be a lot of skill involved in doing it well but skill does not equal creativity.